Ms Archana Kotecha, Asia Region Director and Head of Legal at Liberty, speaking at the launch of the report at HOME’s office in Jan 2019

In a panel discussion about the report on forced labour in the migrant domestic work sector, Archana Kotecha said that many countries are much further along than Singapore in their journey in offering protections to migrant domestic workers (MDWs).

Ms Kotecha, Asia Region Director and Head of Legal at Liberty Shared – who collaborated with the Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME) on the report – pointed out that people tend to assume that having anti-trafficking laws immediately means that everyone is safe and no one is exploited.

“But having an anti-trafficking law does not preclude from the need to have a robust labour protection regime…forced labour does exist independent of human trafficking”, said Ms Kotecha.

The cases cited by HOME in their report are truly heartbreaking. Some of the 872 the MDWs that have sought help from HOME between April 2017 and March 2017 were working and living in conditions that the International Labour Organisation would classify as forced labour.

Some MDWs end up severely injured in desperate escape attempts and many do not reach out for help until much, much later when the conditions have deteriorated drastically. HOME notes that MDWs are often coerced into forced labour condition via psychological threats.

Stephanie Chok, Research & Advocacy Manager at HOME and author of the report said that employers will sometimes threaten their domestic workers. “One method they use is to go online and leave their contact details for prospective employers who can then call them and they can make unsubstantiated, unverified feedback. And this can potentially ruin DWs opportunity to return to SG to work,” she elaborates. That itself is a powerful threat and an effective means of coercion.

Stephanie Chok, Research & Advocacy Manager at HOME.

During the discussion, someone highlighted that Singaporeans also work long hours and sometimes have their phones taken away at work. That person asked why that’s not considered forced labour as well.

Ms Chok explains that coercion is frequently more subtle and not immediately observable. That means that one cannot merely assessed ILO’s forced labour indicators as discreet but instead consider their cumulative impact. Continual intimidation and threats over time, deception of working conditions, and debt bondage alter the dynamic of power and autonomy that these MDWs have once they arrive in Singapore. Unlike an average working Singaporean, they can’t just ‘leave work’ at the end of the day. There is limited or sometimes no freedom of movement or access.

Ms Chok goes on to touch on the debt repayment system in Singapore. While legally, an MDW’s pay can be held for a maximum of two month to repay recruitment debts, in reality it is held much longer under the guise of ‘personal debt repayment’. This debt bondage exerts a coercive power over MWDs. Employers often impose additional restrictions during the loan repayment period while agents will pressure MDWs to stay in unfavourable working conditions until the loan is paid off.

And there’s not much by way of legal recourse for MDWs either as authorities are reluctant to pursue a complaint if there’s no physical abuse. Unfortunately, much of the abuse is not physical. Ms Kotecha reiterates Ms Chok’s earlier point that MDWs end up in desperate situations and feel helpless because psychological coercion is ‘a tough nut to crack’. She says, “In modern day slavery, the chains are invisible and proving those is the hard part”.

“How do you prove that when you threatened this worker, they took it seriously and they were scared? How do you prove that the stigma of going back home penniless, not having earned anything, would mean that somebody would stay in an abusive situation? How do you prove that in the first eight months when she was experiencing abuse she did not leave, she did not seek assistance because she would have had to find the money to pay for another job or because her employment agency would have compelled her to pay a penalty fee? How do you prove those things?” she added.

All of these coercive powers play into the situation where a person ends up feeling helpless, with no choice but to remain in the horrible situation. On top of that, the authorities’ say they are complaint driven – meaning if you don’t complain, they can’t do anything.

Ms Kotecha emphasises that ‘a person has to be empowered to complain’. One way to empower them is to make sure the law is on their side and that it is also clear. You empower them by giving them an avenue to seek assistance. Right now, that’s tough to do.

On top of the psychological factors here in Singapore, MDWs also face the psychological and emotional impact of returning home indebted, having not earn much at all from the country they went to. They go home and see other people sending money home and doing well. “That in itself is an incredible burden to bear”, Ms Kotecha says, for the family, the community and especially the individual.

She added, “all that plays into the fact that somebody may not step out of an abusive situation.”

So when you start to strip away all these elements, you really start to understand what psychological coercion looks like and why just a threat about reporting them to the police would keep MDWs from doing so.

“To the person in that situation, in that vulnerability, it means a whole different thing”, says Ms Kotecha.

Note: The article had earlier stated that all of the 872 MDWs that sought help from HOME were working in forced labour conditions. This had been revised to “some of the 872 MDWs”.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

评论刻板印象描述客工 王昌伟教授轰莫忽视结构性剥削问题

本周一(13日),《联合早报》出现一则由黎仕婉撰写的评论《疫情时期不做无谓指责》,相信是为了反驳早前许通美教授斥责我国“以第三世界的方式”对待客工。 她认为这位前高官言下之意政府并没有好好对待客工,开始举例常看到客工吃了饭盒和饮料罐丢一旁;指友人租房给客工,结果屋内有蟑螂痕迹,“指责和批评是极其容易的事。客工宿舍病例大增,难道客工本身没有责任吗?喜欢聚集和不注重个人卫生不也是原因吗?” 这则评论引起各界讨论。新加坡国立大学中文系副主任王昌伟教授也在《早报》撰文回击,批评照黎仕婉的意思,就是政府已做得很到位,居住环境的脏乱,是客工的文化(用手抓饭吃)和教养(个人素养)的问题。 对此王昌伟在评论中举例,殖民地时期,每当暴发传染病,殖民政府上流阶层就会指华人、马来人、印度人又脏又臭;那么今天我们对客工的形容和殖民主义者的偏见又有何不同? 他直言,今日我国相对整洁的市容主要是政府过去落实的一系列政策如绿化、多建组屋、罚款等的效果,但今日客工居住环境之恶劣,同样是因为政府由于各种原因,长期没有照顾这个处于弱势的群体所造成的。 “今天客工所面对的困境,是全球资本主义浪潮下结构性阶级剥削的一个缩影。” 王昌伟认为当前更应该去正视问题,而不是把客工所处环境脏乱归咎于他们的卫生习惯,“再进一步引申,把矛头指向客工的文化,是不折不扣的种族主义。”

I knew because he told me

‘It also doesn’t mean that just because you are in opposition politics, you must also oppose everything. I believe in voting for the deserving candidate regardless of the party.’ In view of the brickbats he has been getting, does Mr Yaw regret publicising his vote in the first place? ‘No regrets,’ was his emphatic reply. From The New Paper.

Raffles Hall Association Alumni forum “closed to public” after outcry over sudden change of speakers

In the aftermath of public outcry over the abrupt change of speakers…

议员杰乐无视生活成本高 成为家庭多生育阻力

宏茂桥集选区议员杰乐(Darryl David)最近上MONEY FM 89.3电台,在访谈中表示从未接到有民间夫妇向他申诉,生活成本高成为家庭拥有孩子的阻力。 民情联系组(REACH)和财政部,为收集民间意见,而与MONEY FM推出有关预算案主题的空中访谈节目,讨论照顾弱势群体、青年家庭和辅助企业等课题。 在主持人询及对预算案的期待,杰乐表示希望来临的预算案能为青年家庭和儿童给予多谢辅助。 “养育孩子的成本不低,有一定的开销。我有两个孩子,算是个人经验之谈。但从未有任何人告诉我,就因为生活成本太高而不想要生孩子,他们不曾这么说。” “家长希望专注在独生儿” “也听过有些家长会说,已经有一孩子,但不太肯定要不要再生多一个,(开销)太贵了,”杰乐补充,他和这些家长深入了解后,他们不全然是因为负担不起而无法多生,而是他们希望把最好的资源专注在唯一的孩子身上。 杰乐指出,如果同时有三个孩子,都去每月学费两千元的育儿中心肯定吃不消;但与此同时政府仍有提供可负担的选择,所以是否多生儿女,仍是有关家庭的取舍抉择问题。 他仍希望政府多为新生家庭提供辅助,减轻他们养育儿女的负担。…